MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Interesting. I find it difficult to label polygamy, when commanded by God, as a practice that is degrading and humiliating to women. I guess I'm of the ilk that believes that God gives us commandments for our good and the commandments are good--since it came from God.Obviously, the practice wasn't all that good for some women, or else there wouldn't be so much opposition to it. And it is God's will in these latter days that polygamy is outlawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I guess I am just questioning the sincerity of the OP in this thread...whether he was asking a sincere question or just trying to work up a lather amongst the board participants that he can then copy and paste somewhere else for a little laugh-fest at our expense. That is always the possibility. I've also seen linkbacks and pingbacks between this site and others...where other forums were having a good laugh at our expense. Again...you never know who will read what is posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 What other misunderstood doctrines of the church do you think we should avoid talking about? If you keep your head buried in the sand long enough people will start mistaking you for an ostrich.You may call me "ostrich in the sand"...I prefer to refer to myself as wise old owl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Obviously, the practice wasn't all that good for some women, or else there wouldn't be so much opposition to it. And it is God's will in these latter days that polygamy is outlawed.Because some women had issues with it (and some men), that means that the error lies on God's part? Or is it because the implementation of it was flawed?And since God no longer commands it, then that means it is degrading and humiliating now? But not then? What changed to make it so, other than God no longer commands it? Again, could it be that something God-given was misconstrued and perverted to serve purposes other than God's will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttribe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 That is always the possibilities. I've also seen linkbacks and pingbacks between this site and others...where other forums were having a good laugh at our expense. Again...you never know who will read what is posted here.The very question given by the OP is so outrageous, and the subsequent arguments he provided in favor of the question so contrived, that it just set off my "troll alert"...which is, admittedly, fallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 That is always the possibility. I've also seen linkbacks and pingbacks between this site and others...where other forums were having a good laugh at our expense. Again...you never know who will read what is posted here.Well, just to remind everyone, this is the internet. Even things published on lds.org are used in a mocking manner--why should we be exempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Isn't that more of a reason to discuss it? That disdain usually comes from a misunderstanding.Again, it all boils down to empowering the practice of something which the Church does not subscribe to.It may be likened to resurrecting the issue of blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 The current applications of it by those who are not authorized by God do make it unacceptable. Satan is very capable of making anything good seem evil by perverting the original purposes and practices. Polygamy as instituted by God was never about humiliation or degrading women, or even about dirty old men wanting a lot of sex from young girls.Nevertheless, we are human beings. The fact is that we are not authorized to practice polygamy in the Church, and those who practice it are excommunicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 You may call me "ostrich in the sand"...I prefer to refer to myself as wise old owl. An animal that has to keep asking Who? Who? Who? doesn't sound so wise to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) Because some women had issues with it (and some men), that means that the error lies on God's part? Or is it because the implementation of it was flawed?And since God no longer commands it, then that means it is degrading and humiliating now? But not then? What changed to make it so, other than God no longer commands it? Again, could it be that something God-given was misconstrued and perverted to serve purposes other than God's will?God does not err; humankind errs. The practice has been dispensed with according to His will.What I have read in regard to women who practiced polygamy is that it was humiliating and degrading. Edited September 28, 2009 by GrandmaAri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttribe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Well, just to remind everyone, this is the internet. Even things published on lds.org are used in a mocking manner--why should we be exempt?Of course...just wondering (out loud) whether we were being enticed into providing such fodder. That's a far cry from eavesdropping that produces the same result, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenzo Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 That is always the possibility. I've also seen linkbacks and pingbacks between this site and others...where other forums were having a good laugh at our expense. Again...you never know who will read what is posted here.Please forgive my stupid, but while I know what a "link" is, I'm not sure what a linkback is, or how to make one, or how or why to make a "ping". If it's relevant here, could you explain? Is there a way to block linkbacks and/or pings? There's a code, I've read, that a person can use in a post to keep it from being archived. Is there a code to block linkbacks and pings? Or is it better to keep threads open for those for good reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 An animal that has to keep asking Who? Who? Who? doesn't sound so wise to me.Is the "Who" owl related to the "Hoot" owl? And who really gives a hoot. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Lots of the linkbacks and pingbacks are created when someone posts a link to another site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Please forgive my stupid, but while I know what a "link" is, I'm not sure what a linkback is, or how to make one, or how or why to make a "ping". If it's relevant here, could you explain? Is there a way to block linkbacks and/or pings? There's a code, I've read, that a person can use in a post to keep it from being archived. Is there a code to block linkbacks and pings? Or is it better to keep threads open for those for good reasons? Lately I've been doing a lot of moderation on linkbacks. If I find the linkback is to a site that is inappropriate..it's being deleted. I am not the most knowledgeable in trying to explain them. I have a basic knowledge of them and that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 God does not err; humankind errs. The practice has been dispensed with according to His will.So, every time the federal government restricts a religious practice, it is doing so as the duly approved agent of God?Frankly, you're the last person on this board whom I would expect to sustain the federal government as the final arbiter of Divine will. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Shifting gears here, something is missing from the whole picture as I thought about it and whether to mention this or not, to me, it should be mentioned to those who do not have an understanding about Marriage Sealings and how it is ratified for the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. Like all other gospel ordinances, eternal marriage must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise before it is accepted of God (Reference Justification by the Holy Ghost). Generally, the ratifying action of the Holy Ghost must operate twice in relation to a given couple. First, He may ratify their marriage covenant when they initially enter into that contract, and thus express divine approval of their action. But because the covenant they then make contains contingency clauses—statements that it is made according to their faithfulness—the ratifying action conforms to those stipulations in the contract. As long as the partners remain true to the covenant, its promises are in force, but departure from their commitments breaks the covenant. Second, the Holy Ghost acts as a Spirit of promise is when the couple make sure their calling and election to an eternal union and have the promise, or guarantee, sealed by the Holy Spirit, that they will come forth in the resurrection to a place of exaltation in the divine patriarchal order of eternity. This is the seal of which the Lord spoke when He said in a revelation to Joseph Smith: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." [Read D&C 132:26) According to this statement, the only thing that can break this seal is for a person to become perdition. But should he commit wilful sin after being sealed, he himself must pay the debt of divine justice before he comes forth to his exaltation in the resurrection. One can enter into the first and still be denied as an eternal family if they both do not receive the second seal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 You may call me "ostrich in the sand"...I prefer to refer to myself as wise old owl. I've seen you post long enough, I'll maintain my position until I see something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Again, it all boils down to empowering the practice of something which the Church does not subscribe to.It may be likened to resurrecting the issue of blacks not being allowed to hold the priesthood. No, it's a completely different thing from blacks and the priesthood. If you don't understand the differences between policy, practice, and doctrine, then you need to do a little more research before spouting off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 So, every time the federal government restricts a religious practice, it is doing so as the duly approved agent of God?Frankly, you're the last person on this board whom I would expect to sustain the federal government as the final arbiter of Divine will. But, I guess that's neither here nor there.What does the federal government have to do with the law of God? Civil law is predicated upon God's law. To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" what you would expect from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Nevertheless, we are human beings. The fact is that we are not currently authorized to practice polygamy in the Church, and those who practice it are excommunicated. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I've seen you post long enough, I'll maintain my position until I see something different.Your position where I'm concerned is of no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) What does the federal government have to do with the law of God? Civil law is predicated upon God's law. To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" what you would expect from me. I should have been more clear. I was responding primarily to your statement thatAnd it is God's will in these latter days that polygamy is outlawed.and a slough of other posts concluding, in essence, that the outlawing of polygamy is evidence of divine disapproval of the practice.If "civil law is predicated upon God's law", does it follow that ObamaCare--if passed--is the word and the will of the Lord to the American people? Edited September 28, 2009 by Just_A_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Fixed it for you.Don't bother...it was right the first time...Originally Posted by GrandmaAri Nevertheless, we are human beings. The fact is that we are not authorized to practice polygamy in the Church, and those who practice it are excommunicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 No, it's a completely different thing from blacks and the priesthood. If you don't understand the differences between policy, practice, and doctrine, then you need to do a little more research before spouting off.The argument is the same... leave in the past what is in the past. It's meaningless and an exercise in futility.And I don't spout, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts